## Facts

- Edward R. Reines, a member of the Federal Circuit bar, argued two companion patent appeals before panels of the court on March 4, 2014.
- On March 5, 2014, then-Chief Judge Randall Rader (not on either panel) sent Reines a private email describing favorable comments about Reines’s advocacy from a judges-only lunch discussion.
- The email emphasized a personal friendship, repeatedly referred to Reines as “my friend,” and closed with language expressing lifelong friendship; it also invited sharing.
- Reines forwarded the email, with messages soliciting business, to at least 35 existing and prospective clients; ultimately more than 70 recipients received it, including some non-lawyers.
- Subsequent forwarding by other attorneys further suggested Reines “knew the judges well,” increasing the impression that he had special influence with the court.
- The court initiated disciplinary proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 46 and the Federal Circuit’s Attorney Discipline Rules, focusing on whether the dissemination implied an ability to influence the court improperly.

## Issues

1. Whether disseminating a sitting Chief Judge’s private, relationship-laden praise to clients and prospective clients as marketing implied an improper ability to influence the court, in violation of Model Rule 8.4(e).
2. What discipline, if any, was appropriate under Fed. R. App. P. 46 and the Federal Circuit’s Attorney Discipline Rules.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, found Reines’s conduct violated Model Rule 8.4(e).
- The court publicly reprimanded Reines pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 46.
- Reines did not request a disciplinary hearing; the court proceeded on notice and an opportunity to respond through an order to show cause.
- The court selected public reprimand as sufficient to express disapproval, deter similar conduct, and protect the court’s integrity and appearance of impartiality.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court of appeals may discipline attorneys under Fed. R. App. P. 46 for “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar,” after reasonable notice and an opportunity to respond.
- Model Rule 8.4(e) prohibits a lawyer from stating or implying an ability to influence improperly a government official or to obtain results by improper means.
- Using nonpublic judicial communications and emphasized personal judicial relationships as client-solicitation material can imply improper influence and harm public confidence in impartial adjudication.
- Attorney marketing that suggests outcomes depend on personal connections with judges, rather than merits and lawful advocacy, warrants discipline to protect the administration of justice.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit disciplined an attorney for circulating a Chief Judge’s private, complimentary email to solicit clients because the dissemination implied special influence with the court, violating Model Rule 8.4(e), and the court imposed a public reprimand under Fed. R. App. P. 46 to safeguard public confidence in judicial impartiality.


In re Reines, 771 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)